Avatar (The movie)

[Gymnos42]

The message about the sacredness of nature and interconnection of a living things really resonated so much with where I am in my personal journey. I've just recently started exploring mystical panentheism so you can imagine why.
~ Larry

[mars1692]

I thought Avatar was amazing.
Saw it in 3D and was worried about how well it would work.
No need to worry!

The Na'vi were beautiful and striking creatures.
Some have said that the story was it's week point. I'd have to disagree with that.
I think we were given an medium through which we could let our imaginations run wild.
Mine did any way.

I was on Pandora in spirit if not in body.

Now, if I was offered a one way ticket to Pandora......


Paul

I agree with what you said.
If you get a one way ticket to Pandora and can take a person with you... you know who you should take

[Gymnos42]

Now, if I was offered a one way ticket to Pandora......


Paul

I agree with what you said.
If you get a one way ticket to Pandora and can take a person with you... you know who you should take

ME! ME! PICK ME!!!!!
~ Larry

[Kiwee]

Except for that wee insignificant lil problem with the poisonous atmosphere, you should be fine.

'sides you may be able to visit in a few years' time when the sequel comes out. (There's BOUND to be one.. or two.)

[Gymnos42]

But can't I get an avatar body like the main character? Especially if you can give my wife one too.
~ Larry

[RolandSmokit]

As this is an international forum, I'd like to remind the world that us Brits have a long history of painting outselves blue and running around naked, especially when invaded by imperialist foreigners. Na'vi ???? Pah ! Druids more like !

Personally, I like the quote from Terry Gilliam, when asked about Avatar he replied that he prefers to make 2D films with 3D characters... ouch !

[Soleil Nu]

Personally, I like the quote from Terry Gilliam, when asked about Avatar he replied that he prefers to make 2D films with 3D characters... ouch !

It's not surprising to hear such comments from "artsy" types about wider audience oriented directors like James Cameron or Steven Spielberg. But it always reminds me of a famous quote from Mark Twain:

"The works of the masters are like wine, mine are more like water. But everybody drink water."

But in fact, I suspect that those directors are less irritated by the "popular" nature of Avatar than by the message it carries: Humanity sucks, it is the plague of the earth, and even if it survives long enough to take to the stars, it will not have learned its lesson and will simply be more of a plague on the new worlds it encounters, unless stoped by an external and superior force.

People really really really hate this message, and will stop at nothing to reject, denigrate, marginalize or otherwhise ostricize anyone carrying it, even though this viewpoint has been proven right again and again throughout history.

[kris]

I have seen Avatar. A fantastic movie. And I could see niples in the part where the main caracters where going to have sex. I thought it was liberating for an us-movie...
Though they should have been more liberating.

[Rick]

People really really really hate this message, and will stop at nothing to reject, denigrate, marginalize or otherwhise (sic) ostricize (sic) anyone carrying it, even though this viewpoint has been proven right again and again throughout history..

I see an ideological thought spiral in play here. It also seems true that many people really really really hate those who don't espouse Avatar's message, and will stop at nothing to reject, denigrate, marginalize or otherwise ostracize anyone carrying it; but this comes with some irony. Are those who champion Avatar's ideology themselves above or immune from taking the corrupting influence of humanity to this or any other available world?

[Gymnos42]

But it always reminds me of a famous quote from Mark Twain:

"The works of the masters are like wine, mine are more like water. But everybody drink water."

Excellent!

But in fact, I suspect that those directors are less irritated by the "popular" nature of Avatar than by the message it carries: Humanity sucks, it is the plague of the earth, and even if it survives long enough to take to the stars, it will not have learned its lesson and will simply be more of a plague on the new worlds it encounters, unless stoped by an external and superior force.

People really really really hate this message, and will stop at nothing to reject, denigrate, marginalize or otherwhise ostricize anyone carrying it, even though this viewpoint has been proven right again and again throughout history.

This reminds me of something CS Lewis said when asked if he thought there was life on other worlds. He said he didn't know if there was but he did say that if so then possibly the practical limits of space travel set by the speed of light might be a form of divine quarantine to save the rest of the universe from humanity.
~ Larry

[nudewalker]

I'm sorry that I can't give the proper person credit but it was said 'if there is intelligent life out there they're smart enough not to come here'.

[Gymnos42]

I'm sorry that I can't give the proper person credit but it was said 'if there is intelligent life out there they're smart enough not to come here'.

Ooooh, I like that a lot. I've got to find that.
~ Larry

[Soleil Nu]

I see an ideological thought spiral in play here. It also seems true that many people really really really hate those who don't espouse Avatar's message, and will stop at nothing to reject, denigrate, marginalize or otherwise ostracize anyone carrying it; but this comes with some irony.

Actually, I was more simply pointing out the fact that misanthropists, in general, have very few friends. Most people are simply too uncomfortable with their vision of humanity, and its implications.

Are those who champion Avatar's ideology themselves above or immune from taking the corrupting influence of humanity to this or any other available world?

Of course not. Humanity's destructive nature is inherent to its genetic makeup. It's not an individual problem, it's a collective one. Throughout history, many civilizations have managed to live in perfect equilibrium with their environement and its resources for millenia. Humans don't have an in-built mechanism to control their growth, simply because no life form on the planet has. All lifeforms rely on external factors to limit their growth; it's always been this way, and humans are no different. However, humans are the only species with enough brain power to overcome external limitations, much like cancer cells in the body. Individual cancer cells are not evil; they just do what their flawed genetic code tells them to do: multiply, ignoring every biological control system of the body. So the tumor grows bigger and bigger, which at first may look like a very successful strategy for survival. After all, tumors are usually the best fed, fastest growing, healthiest cells in the body. For a time at least. But inevitably, they begin to overcome their host's ability to sustain their insatiable appetite for ressources, stretching it to its limits. And then the host dies. And, of course, so does the cancer.

[Superpan]

To all people who say that humans are destructive and are evil, how do we not know that aliens would not be just as destructive as we are? What if dogs had becoem the main lifeform on earth? What would prevent them from acting like us?
Humans do alot of good and I dislike when it is stereotyped as evil by its own members.

[Soleil Nu]

To all people who say that humans are destructive and are evil

Destructive, yes. Evil, no. In fact, I very carefully stated in my last post that human nature had nothing to do with "evilness". Although, some individual humans could definitaly be qualified as "evil". But that's another matter entirely.

how do we not know that aliens would not be just as destructive as we are?

We don't. This, in fact, could very well be possible.

What if dogs had becoem the main lifeform on earth? What would prevent them from acting like us?

Nothing. In fact, if they'd developped the same form of intelligence as ours, they'd probably act in exactly the same way.

Humans do alot of good

Some individual humans do alot of good. Other individual humans do a lot of evil. Most humans do a lot of both during their lifetime. But again, all of this is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the global environemental negative impact of the presence of the human species on earth.

and I dislike when it is stereotyped as evil by its own members.

Firstly: What we "like" or "dislike" doesn't change the reality of things. You seem to imply that members of some group or organization should not be critical of the group or organization they belong to. For example, according to you, members of some political party, or social club, or church should just shut up and say nothing when they see their organization stray on a dangerous tangeant that begins to steer it away from its main objective or threatens its very existence. Well, I don't agree. Being a member of the human race not only gives me every right to be critical of it and sound the alarm when I see it engaging in behaviors that threaten its very survival, but it gives me the moral obligation to do so.
Secondly: Again, I never stereotypically called all members of the human race "evil". These are words that YOU put in my mouth, because, like 99% of people, you automatically interpret a critic directed at humanity as a whole as a critic directed at every single individual human. This is NOT the case. Like I said earlier, individual people don't have to be "evil" for humanity as a whole to be destructive. All they have to do is go about their ordinary business, like they do every day.
Three billion years ago, a new species appeared on earth: Stromatolithes. They looked like every other lifeform at the time: simple bacteria. But, like humans with their intelligence, they developped a totally new ability that confered them an immense advantage over every other existing lifeform: photosynthesis, the ability to tap into a new an inexhaustible energy source: sunlight. Soon, they became the undisputed dominant species on earth. The planet was literally covered with them. However, as you know, photosynthesis has a side effect: it produces oxygen which, chemicaly speaking, is a highly corrosive and destructive gas. After several millions of years, the earth's atomosphere slowly filled with this deadly poison to every life form of the time which were all anaerobic, including the stromatolithes themselves.
Stromatolithes were not "evil", they were just bacteria. But their evolutionary design was flawed, and they slowly but surely wiped themselves out of existence, along with almost every other lifeform of the time. We should be thankfull to them though, because they filled the atmosphere with a new resource (oxygen) that another class of bacteria learned to exploit, eventually giving birth to all complex lifeforms we know today, including us.